• LA DÉCLARATION DE GREAT BARRINGTON

    En tant qu’épidémiologistes des maladies infectieuses et scientifiques spécialisés en santé publique, nous sommes inquiets des impacts physiques et mentaux causés par les politiques actuelles contre le COVID-19 et nous recommandons une approche alternative que nous appelons Protection focalisée (Focused Protection). 

    Que nous soyons de gauche ou de droite, et quel que soit notre pays d’origine, nous avons consacré nos carrières à la protection des populations. Les politiques actuelles de confinement produisent des effets désastreux sur la santé publique à court, moyen et long terme. Parmi les conséquences, on peut citer, entre autres, une baisse des taux de vaccination chez les enfants, une aggravation des cas de maladies cardio-vasculaires, une baisse des examens pour de possibles cancers ou encore une détérioration de la santé mentale en général. Cela va engendrer de grands excès de mortalité dans les années à venir, notamment dans la classe ouvrière et parmi les plus jeunes. Maintenir les écoliers en dehors de l’école est une grande injustice. 

    Conserver ces mesures en attendant qu’un vaccin soit disponible causera des dégâts irréparables. Les couches sociales les moins favorisées seront les plus touchées. 
    Heureusement, notre compréhension du virus s’améliore. Nous savons que la vulnérabilité à la mort par le COVID-19 est plus de mille fois plus haute parmi les personnes âgées et infirmes que chez les jeunes. En effet, pour les enfants, le COVID-19 est moins dangereux que bien d’autres maux, y compris la grippe. 

    L’immunité grandissant dans la population, le risque d’infection baisse pour tout le monde, y compris les plus vulnérables. Nous savons que toutes les populations vont finir par atteindre l’immunité collective, c’est-à-dire le point où le nombre de nouvelles infections est stable, et que ce processus peut s’accompagner (sans pour autant dépendre) de l’existence d’un vaccin. Par conséquent, notre objectif devrait être de minimiser la mortalité et le mal fait à la société jusqu’à ce qu’on atteigne l’immunité collective. 

    Une approche à la fois compassionnelle et prenant en compte les risques et les bénéfices consiste à autoriser celles et ceux qui ont le moins de risques de mourir du virus de vivre leurs vies normalement afin qu’ils fabriquent de l’immunité au travers d’infections naturelles tout en protégeant celles et ceux qui ont le plus de risques de mourir. Nous appelons cela la Protection Focalisée (Focused Protection). 

    Le fait d’adopter des mesures pour protéger les plus vulnérables devrait être le but central des réponses de santé publique au COVID-19. A titre d’exemples, les résidences pour personnes âgées devraient être dotées de personnel qui a acquis l’immunité et qui réalise fréquemment des tests PCR pour les autres membres du personnel et les visiteurs. Par ailleurs, la rotation du personnel devrait être la plus faible possible. Les personnes retraitées qui vivent chez elles devraient se voir livrer leurs courses à domicile. Quand c’est possible, elles devraient rencontrer les proches en plein air plutôt qu’à l’intérieur. Une liste de mesure complète et détaillée, incluant des approches pour les foyers comprenant plusieurs générations, peut être mise en œuvre. C’est largement dans la capacité et les prérogatives des professionnels de la santé publique. 

    Ceux qui ne sont pas vulnérables devraient immédiatement être autorisés à reprendre une vie normale. Des mesures d’hygiène simples, comme se laver les mains et rester chez soi si l’on est malade, devraient être pratiquées par chacun pour réduire le seuil de l’immunité collective. Les écoles et les universités devraient rouvrir pour des enseignements en présentiel. Les activités extrascolaires comme le sport devraient reprendre. Les jeunes adultes qui présentent peu de risques devraient travailler normalement plutôt que depuis chez eux. Les restaurants et les commerces devraient ouvrir. Les arts, la musique, le sport et les autres activités culturelles devraient reprendre. Les personnes qui présentent plus de risque peuvent participer si elles le souhaitent à ce processus tandis que la société dans son ensemble bénéficie de la protection ainsi conférée aux plus vulnérables par ceux qui ont construit l’immunité collective. 

    Cette déclaration a été rédigée et signée le 4 octobre 2020 à Barrington, aux États-Unis, par :

    Le Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professeur de médecine à l’université Harvard, un biostatisticien et épidémiologiste spécialisé dans la détection et la surveillance du déclenchement des maladies infectieuses et l’évaluation de la sécurité des vaccins.

    Le Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professeure à l’université d’Oxford, une épidémiologiste spécialisée en immunologie, dans le développement de vaccins et la modélisation mathématique des maladies infectieuses.

    Le Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professeur à l’Ecole Médicale de l’université de Stanford, un médecin, épidémiologiste, économiste de la santé et expert en santé publique spécialiste des maladies infectieuses et de leurs effets sur les populations vulnérables.

    --
    Cosignée par

    Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA
    Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
    Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
    Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
    Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
    Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
    Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany
    Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
    Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
    Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
    Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
    Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
    Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
    Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany
    Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
    Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
    Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany
    Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany
    Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
    Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
    Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
    Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
    Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
    Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
    Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
    Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
    Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
    Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA. 
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
    Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
    Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
    Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
    Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
    Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
    Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
    Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
    Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
    Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
    Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
    Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
    Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany
    Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
    Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

    --
    Signez : https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign

    --

  • #Covid-19 : le choix des maux
    https://joellepalmieri.org/2020/10/20/covid-19-le-choix-des-maux

    La chose est maintenant claire. En utilisant le terme « couvre-feu » pour qualifier le 14 octobre 2020 l’ensemble des mesures gouvernementales liées à l’aggravation de la crise sanitaire en #France, le Président de la République continue de banaliser ses choix militaristes. Ce parti pris a été relevé : Macron utilise une locution qui a marqué l’Histoire du … Lire la suite →

    #Humeurs #Afrique #Allemagne #Andrée_Michel #Belgique #Domination #Espagne #Europe #Italie #Luttes #Média #Militarisation #Résistance #Royaume_uni #Violences


    https://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9756ba41fe8333157071419a20733f4a?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Fa

  • Why the Swedish Model for Fighting COVID-19 Is a Disaster | Time
    https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster

    Le fameux modèle suédois de lutte contre le #covid est une immense #imposture basée sur le précepte ultra-libéral du #laisser-faire, voire plus franchement de l’#eugénisme social.
    Non seulement ils ont imposé l’#immunité_de_troupeau à la population en lui mentant assez éfrontément, mais ils ont carrément donné un coup de pouce à la #contamination_de_masse en ouvrant massivement les #écoles pour en faire des #accélérateurs d’#épidémie.

    Et cette #forfaiture #criminelle est à présent à l’œuvre chez nous

    The Swedish COVID-19 experiment of not implementing early and strong measures to safeguard the population has been hotly debated around the world, but at this point we can predict it is almost certain to result in a net failure in terms of death and suffering. As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino). But perhaps more striking are the findings of a study published Oct. 12 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which pointed out that, of the countries the researchers investigated, Sweden and the U.S. essentially make up a category of two: they are the only countries with high overall mortality rates that have failed to rapidly reduce those numbers as the pandemic has progressed.

    Yet the architects of the Swedish plan are selling it as a success to the rest of the world. And officials in other countries, including at the top level of the U.S. government, are discussing the strategy as one to emulate—despite the reality that doing so will almost certainly increase the rates of death and misery.

    Countries that locked down early and/or used extensive test and tracing—including Denmark, Finland, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand—saved lives and limited damage to their economies. Countries that locked down late, came out of lock down too early, did not effectively test and quarantine, or only used a partial lockdown—including Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Spain, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K.—have almost uniformly done worse in rates of infection and death.

    Despite this, Sweden’s Public Health Agency director Johan Carlson has claimed that “the Swedish situation remains favorable,” and that the country’s response has been “consistent and sustainable.” The data, however, show that the case rate in Sweden, as elsewhere in Europe, is currently increasing.

    Average daily cases rose 173% nationwide from Sept. 2-8 to Sept. 30-Oct. 6 and in Stockholm that number increased 405% for the same period. Though some have argued that rising case numbers can be attributed to increased testing, a recent study of Stockholm’s wastewater published Oct. 5 by the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) argues otherwise. An increased concentration of the virus in wastewater, the KTH researchers write, shows a rise of the virus in the population of the greater Stockholm area (where a large proportion of the country’s population live) in a way that is entirely independent of testing. Yet even with this rise in cases, the government is easing the few restrictions it had in place.

    From early on, the Swedish government seemed to treat it as a foregone conclusion that many people would die. The country’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on April 3, “We will have to count the dead in thousands. It is just as well that we prepare for it.” In July, as the death count reached 5,500, Löfven said that the “strategy is right, I am completely convinced of that.” In September, Dr. Anders Tegnell, the Public Health Agency epidemiologist in charge of the country’s COVID-19 response reiterated the party line that a growing death count did “not mean that the strategy itself has gone wrong.” There has been a lack of written communication between the Prime Minister and the Public Health Authority: when the authors requested all emails and documents between the Prime Minister’s office and the Public Health Authority for the period Jan. 1—Sept. 14, the Prime Minister’s Registrar replied on Sept. 17 that none existed.

    Despite the Public Health Agency’s insistence to the contrary, the core of this strategy is widely understood to have been about building natural “herd immunity”—essentially, letting enough members of a population (the herd) get infected, recover, and then develop an immune system response to the virus that it would ultimately stop spreading. Both the agency and Prime Minister Löfven have characterized the approach as “common sense“ trust-based recommendations rather than strict measures, such as lockdowns, which they say are unsustainable over an extended period of time—and that herd immunity was just a desirable side effect. However, internal government communications suggest otherwise.

    Emails obtained by one of the authors through Freedom of Information laws (called offentlighetsprincipen, or “Openness Principle,” in Swedish) between national and regional government agencies, including the Swedish Public Health Authority, as well as those obtained by other journalists, suggest that the goal was all along in fact to develop herd immunity. We have also received information through sources who made similar requests or who corresponded directly with government agencies that back up this conclusion. For the sake of transparency, we created a website where we’ve posted some of these documents.

    One example showing clearly that government officials had been thinking about herd immunity from early on is a March 15 email sent from a retired doctor to Tegnell, the epidemiologist and architect of the Swedish plan, which he forwarded to his Finnish counterpart, Mika Salminen. In it, the retired doctor recommended allowing healthy people to be infected in controlled settings as a way to fight the epidemic. “ One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster ,” Tegnell noted at the top of the forwarded email.

    Salminen responded that the Finnish Health Agency had considered this but decided against it, because “over time, the children are still going to spread the infection to other age groups.” Furthermore, the Finnish model showed that closing schools would reduce “the attack rate of the disease on the elderly” by 10%. Tegnell responded: “10 percent might be worth it?”

    The majority of the rest of Sweden’s policymakers seemed to have agreed: the country never closed daycare or schools for children under the age of 16, and school attendance is mandatory under Swedish law, with no option for distance learning or home schooling, even for family members in high risk groups. Policymakers essentially decided to use children and schools as participants in an experiment to see if herd immunity to a deadly disease could be reached. Multiple outbreaks at schools occurred in both the spring and autumn.

    At this point, whether herd immunity was the “goal” or a “byproduct” of the Swedish plan is semantics, because it simply hasn’t worked. In April, the Public Health Agency predicted that 40% of the Stockholm population would have the disease and acquire protective antibodies by May. According to the agency’s own antibody studies published Sept. 3 for samples collected up until late June, the actual figure for random testing of antibodies is only 11.4% for Stockholm, 6.3% for Gothenburg and 7.1% across Sweden. As of mid-August, herd immunity was still “nowhere in sight,” according to a Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine study. That shouldn’t have been a surprise. After all, herd immunity to an infectious disease has never been achieved without a vaccine.

    Löfven, his government, and the Public Health Agency all say that the high COVID-19 death rate in Sweden can be attributed to the fact that a large portion of these deaths occurred in nursing homes, due to shortcomings in elderly care.

    However, the high infection rate across the country was the underlying factor that led to a high number of those becoming infected in care homes. Many sick elderly were not seen by a doctor because the country’s hospitals were implementing a triage system that, according to a study published July 1 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, appeared to have factored in age and predicted prognosis. “This likely reduced [intensive care unit] load at the cost of more high-risk patients”—like elderly people with confirmed infection—dying outside the ICU.” Only 13% of the elderly residents who died with COVID-19 during the spring received hospital care, according to preliminary statistics from the National Board of Health and Welfare released Aug.

    In one case which seems representative of how seniors were treated, patient Reza Sedghi was not seen by a doctor the day he died from COVID-19 at a care home in Stockholm. A nurse told Sedghi’s daughter Lili Perspolisi that her father was given a shot of morphine before he passed away, that no oxygen was administered and staff did not call an ambulance. “No one was there and he died alone,” Perspolisi says.

    In order to be admitted for hospital care, patients needed to have breathing problems and even then, many were reportedly denied care. Regional healthcare managers in each of Sweden’s 21 regions, who are responsible for care at hospitals as well as implementing Public Health Agency guidelines, have claimed that no patients were denied care during the pandemic. But internal local government documents from April from some of Sweden’s regions—including those covering the biggest cities of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö—also show directives for how some patients including those receiving home care, those living at nursing homes and assisted living facilities, and those with special needs could not receive oxygen or hospitalization in some situations. Dagens Nyheter published an investigation on Oct. 13 showing that patients in Stockholm were denied care as a result of these guidelines. Further, a September investigation by Sveriges Radio, Sweden’s national public broadcaster, found that more than 100 people reported to the Swedish Health and Care Inspectorate that their relatives with COVID-19 either did not receive oxygen or nutrient drops or that they were not allowed to come to hospital.

    These issues do not only affect the elderly or those who had COVID-19. The National Board of Health and Welfare’s guidelines for intensive care in extraordinary circumstances throughout Sweden state that priority should be given to patients based on biological, not chronological, age. Sörmlands Media, in an investigation published May 13, cited a number of sources saying that, in many parts of the country, the health care system was already operating in a way such that people were being denied the type of inpatient care they would have received in normal times. Regional health agencies were using a Clinical Frailty Scale, an assessment tool designed to predict the need for care in a nursing home or hospital, and the life expectancy of older people by estimating their fragility, to determine whether someone should receive hospital care and was applied to decisions regarding all sorts of treatment, not only for COVID-19. These guidelines led to many people with health care needs unrelated to COVID-19 not getting the care they need, with some even dying as a result—collateral damage of Sweden’s COVID-19 strategy.

    Dr. Michael Broomé, the chief physician at Stockholm’s Karolinska Hospital’s Intensive Care Unit, says his department’s patient load tripled during the spring. His staff, he says, “have often felt powerless and inadequate. We have lost several young, previously healthy, patients with particularly serious disease courses. We have also repeatedly been forced to say no to patients we would normally have accepted due to a lack of experienced staff, suitable facilities and equipment.”

    In June, Dagens Nyheter reported a story of one case showing how disastrous such a scenario can be. Yanina Lucero had been ill for several weeks in March with severe breathing problems, fever and diarrhea, yet COVID-19 tests were not available at the time except for those returning from high risk areas who displayed symptoms, those admitted to the hospital, and those working in health care. Yanina was only 39 years old and had no underlying illnesses. Her husband Cristian brought her to an unnamed hospital in Stockholm, but were told it was full and sent home, where Lucero’s health deteriorated. After several days when she could barely walk, an ambulance arrived and Lucero was taken to Huddinge hospital, where she was sedated and put on a ventilator. She died on April 15 without receiving a COVID-19 test in hospital.

    Sweden did try some things to protect citizens from the pandemic. On March 12 the government restricted public gatherings to 500 people and the next day the Public Health Agency issued a press release telling people with possible COVID-19 symptoms to stay home. On March 17, the Public Health Agency asked employers in the Stockholm area to let employees work from home if they could. The government further limited public gatherings to 50 people on March 29. Yet there were no recommendations on private events and the 50-person limit doesn’t apply to schools, libraries, corporate events, swimming pools, shopping malls or many other situations. Starting April 1, the government restricted visits to retirement homes (which reopened to visitors on Oct. 1 without masks recommended for visitors or staff). But all these recommendations came later than in the other Nordic countries. In the interim, institutions were forced to make their own decisions; some high schools and universities changed to on-line teaching and restaurants and bars went to table seating with distance, and some companies instituted rules about wearing masks on site and encouraging employees to work from home.

    Meanwhile Sweden built neither the testing nor the contact-tracing capacity that other wealthy European countries did. Until the end of May (and again in August), Sweden tested 20% the number of people per capita compared with Denmark, and less than both Norway and Finland; Sweden has often had among the lowest test rates in Europe. Even with increased testing in the fall, Sweden still only tests only about one-fourth that of Denmark.

    Sweden never quarantined those arriving from high-risk areas abroad nor did it close most businesses, including restaurants and bars. Family members of those who test positive for COVID-19 must attend school in person, unlike in many other countries where if one person in a household tests positive the entire family quarantines, usually for 14 days. Employees must also report to work as usual unless they also have symptoms of COVID-19, an agreement with their employer for a leave of absence or a doctor recommends that they isolate at home.

    On Oct. 1, the Public Health Authority issued non-binding “rules of conduct” that open the possibility for doctors to be able to recommend that certain individuals stay home for seven days if a household member tests positive for COVID-19. But there are major holes in these rules: they do not apply to children (of all ages, from birth to age 16, the year one starts high school), people in the household who previously have a positive PCR or antibody test or, people with socially important professions, such as health care staff (under certain circumstances).

    There is also no date for when the rule would go into effect. “It may not happen right away, Stockholm will start quickly but some regions may need more time to get it all in place,” Tegnell said at a Oct. 1 press conference. Meanwhile, according to current Public Health Agency guidelines issued May 15 and still in place, those who test positive for COVID-19 are expected to attend work and school with mild symptoms so long as they are seven days post-onset of symptoms and fever free for 48 hours.

    Sweden actually recommends against masks everywhere except in places where health care workers are treating COVID-19 patients (some regions expand that to health care workers treating suspected patients as well). Autumn corona outbreaks in Dalarna, Jönköping, Luleå, Malmö, Stockholm and Uppsala hospitals are affecting both hospital staff and patients. In an email on April 5, Tegnell wrote to Mike Catchpole, the chief scientist at the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC): “We are quite worried about the statement ECDC has been preparing about masks.” Tegnell attached a document in which he expresses concern that ECDC recommending facemasks would “imply that the spread is airborne which would seriously harm further communication and trust among the population and health care workers” and concludes “we would like to warn against the publication of this advice.” Despite this, on April 8 ECDC recommended masks and on June 8 the World Health Organization updated its stance to recommend masks.

    Sweden’s government officials stuck to their party line. Karin Tegmark Wisell of the Public Health Agency said at a press conference on July 14 that “we see around the world that masks are used in a way so that you rather increase the spread of infection.” Two weeks later, Lena Hallengren, the Minister of Health and Social Affairs, spoke about masks at a press conference on July 29 and said, “We don’t have that tradition or culture” and that the government “would not review the Public Health Agency’s decision not to recommend masks.”

    All of this creates a situation which leaves teachers, bus drivers, medical workers and care home staff more exposed, without face masks at a time when the rest of the world is clearly endorsing widespread mask wearing.

    On Aug. 13, Tegnell said that to recommend masks to the public “quite a lot of resources are required. There is quite a lot of money that would be spent if you are going to have masks.” Indeed, emails between Tegnell and colleagues at the Public Health Agency and Andreas Johansson of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs show that the policy concerns of the health authority were influenced by financial interests, including the commercial concerns of Sweden’s airports.

    Swedavia, the owner of the country’s largest airport, Stockholm Arlanda, told employees during the spring and early summer they could not wear masks or gloves to work. One employee told Upsala Nya Tidning newspaper on Aug. 24 “Many of us were sick during the beginning of the pandemic and two colleagues have died due to the virus. I would estimate that 60%-80% of the staff at the security checks have had the infection.”

    “Our union representatives fought for us to have masks at work,” the employee said, “but the airport’s response was that we were an authority that would not spread fear, but we would show that the virus was not so dangerous.” Swedavia’s reply was that they had introduced the infection control measures recommended by the authorities. On July 1, the company changed its policy, recommending masks for everyone who comes to Arlanda—that, according to a Swedavia spokesperson, was not as a result of “an infection control measure advocated by Swedish authorities,” but rather, due to a joint European Union Aviation Safety Agency and ECDC recommendation for all of Europe.

    As early as January, the Public Health Agency was warning the government about costs. In a Jan. 31 communique, Public Health Agency Director Johan Carlsson (appointed by Löfven) and General Counsel Bitte Bråstad wrote to the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, cautioning the government about costs associated with classifying COVID-19 as a socially dangerous disease: “After a decision on quarantine, costs for it [include] compensation which according to the Act, must be paid to those who, due to the quarantine decision, must refrain from gainful employment. The uncertainty factors are many even when calculating these costs. Society can also suffer a loss of production due to being quarantined [and] prevented from performing gainful employment which they would otherwise have performed.” Sweden never implemented quarantine in society, not even for those returning from travel abroad or family members of those who test positive for COVID-19.

    Not only did these lack of measures likely result in more infections and deaths, but it didn’t even help the economy: Sweden has fared worse economically than other Nordic countries throughout the pandemic.

    The Swedish way has yielded little but death and misery. And, this situation has not been honestly portrayed to the Swedish people or to the rest of the world.

    A Public Health Agency report published July 7 included data for teachers in primary schools working on-site as well as for secondary school teachers who switched to distance instruction online. In the report, they combined the two data sources and compared the result to the general population, stating that teachers were not at greater risk and implying that schools were safe. But in fact, the infection rate of those teaching in classrooms was 60% higher than those teaching online—completely undermining the conclusion of the report.

    The report also compares Sweden to Finland for March through the end of May and wrongly concludes that the ”closing of schools had no measurable effect on the number of cases of COVID-19 among children.” As testing among children in Sweden was almost non-existent at that time compared to Finland, these data were misrepresented; a better way to look at it would be to consider the fact that Sweden had seven times as many children per capita treated in the ICU during that time period.

    When pressed about discrepancies in the report, Public Health Agency epidemiologist Jerker Jonsson replied on Aug. 21 via email: “The title is a bit misleading. It is not a direct comparison of the situation in Finland to the situation in Sweden. This is just a report and not a peer-reviewed scientific study. This was just a quick situation report and nothing more.” However the Public Health Agency and Minister of Education continue to reference this report as justification to keep schools open, and other countries cite it as an example.

    This is not the only case where Swedish officials have misrepresented data in an effort to make the situation seem more under control than it really is. In April, a group of 22 scientists and physicians criticized Sweden’s government for the 105 deaths per day the country was seeing at the time, and Tegnell and the Public Health Agency responded by saying the true number was just 60 deaths per day. Revised government figures now show Tegnell was incorrect and the critics were right. The Public Health Agency says the discrepancy was due to a backlog in accounting for deaths, but they have backlogged deaths throughout the pandemic, making it difficult to track and gauge the actual death toll in real time.

    Sweden never went into an official lockdown but an estimated 1.5 million have self-isolated, largely the elderly and those in risk groups. This was probably the largest factor in slowing the spread of the virus in the country in the summer. However, recent data suggest that cases are yet again spiking in the country, and there’s no indication that government policies will adapt.

    Health care workers, scientists and private citizens have all voiced concerns about the Swedish approach. But Sweden is a small country, proud of its humanitarian image—so much so that we cannot seem to understand when we have violated it. There is simply no way to justify the magnitude of lost lives, poorer health and putting risk groups into long-term isolation, especially not in an effort to reach an unachievable herd immunity. Countries need to take care before adopting the “Swedish way.” It could have tragic consequences for this pandemic or the next.

    • Ça rappelle la formule « on n’additionne pas des choux et des carottes » (sauf pour confectionner un plat), toute distinctivité abolie en moins marrant :

      ... l’immunité collective contre une maladie infectieuse n’a jamais été obtenue sans vaccin.

      Sinon, on retrouve là bas ce que Epicov a mis en lumière, les plus âgés (plus de 50 ans), à la vie sociale moins foisonnante, en moyenne (?), et plus prudents, prennent des mesures de distanciation qui les préserve pour partie des contaminations.
      La non généralisation des #masques (découragée par le gvt) facilité le maintien et l’expansion de l’épidémie (à l’inverse de ce qui se passe ici, où la seconde vague se distingue pour l’instant nettement de la première avec cette modification du comportement).

      #Suède

  • What Does It Mean If a Vaccine Is ‘Successful’ ? | WIRED
    https://www.wired.com/story/what-does-it-mean-if-a-vaccine-is-successful

    Aux #états-unis, alors même que de l’#argent_public à été massivement injecté, la #FDA a laissé les #laboratoires_pharmaceutiques définir les critères d’efficacité de leur(s) propre(s) #vaccin(s) contre le #SARS_Cov2 ; par exemple chez Pfizer il suffira d’avoir significativement moins de #COVID-19 non graves que dans le bras placebo pour conclure à l’efficacité du vaccin ..., avec, de plus, comme corollaire la possibilité de pouvoir arrêter leur essai lors des résultats intérimaires et d’homologuer le vaccin. quitte à voir apparaître des effets secondaires graves par la suite.

    Par ailleurs il n’existe aucun essai comparant les candidats vaccins entre eux, pour le plus grand bonheur des labos bien sûr..

    L’#OMS a bien prévu des essais rigoureux en #Europe avec des comparaisons entre produits, mais les choses ont à peine démarré..

    It’s worth it to do these things [comparaison entre vaccins]. And the companies don’t want us to do it. They’d much prefer being oligopolists than to compete,” Bach says. Head-to-head tests would let the market compare their products, and the companies would have no way of spinning the results. (He pitched the idea in an op-ed in Stat.) “They don’t want binary events that would cause their market to evaporate,” Bach says. “Here we have a situation where we have financed a lot of the development, there’s a lot of government IP, we’ve given advance marketing commitments—which are guarantees of revenue—and we’re paying for the distribution. We’ve run the table on reasons why the government should have an interest in managing and guiding the science.”

    Yet that only happened in one case—the government-run trial of the antiviral drug remdesivir. It didn’t happen with any other therapeutics, and hasn’t happened with vaccines. Instead, the regulatory agencies let the pharmaceutical companies define the terms of their own trials. “It makes me bonkers that we think we should let the companies decide on the study designs, because their incentives are off,” Bach says. “When we know definitively that X or Y are not what we want, and we want something slightly different, that’s where the government is supposed to step in and modify the market’s behavior.”

    #vaccins #santé #santé_publique #pharma #big_pharma #marché #dérégulation #délétère

  • Cinquième partie
    « Le regard et la distance à la porte »

    SCI Galeano

    https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Cinquieme-partie-Le-regard-et-la-distance-a-la-porte

    Supposons qu’il est possible de choisir, par exemple, le regard. Supposons que vous pouvez vous libérer, ne serait-ce qu’un moment, de la tyrannie des réseaux sociaux qui imposent non seulement ce qu’on regarde et ce dont on parle, mais aussi comment regarder et comment parler. Donc, supposons que vous relevez les yeux. Plus haut : de ce qui est local à ce qui est régional ou à ce qui est national ou à ce qui est mondial. Vous regardez ? Oui, un chaos, un fouillis, un désordre. Alors supposons que vous êtes un être humain, enfin, que vous n’êtes pas une application numérique qui, à toute vitesse, regarde, classifie, hiérarchise, juge et sanctionne. Alors vous choisissez ce que vous regardez… et comment regarder. Il se pourrait, c’est une supposition, que regarder et juger ne soient pas la même chose. Ainsi, vous ne faites pas que choisir, vous décidez aussi. Changer la question « ça, c’est mal ou bien ? » en « qu’est-ce que c’est ? ». Bien sûr, la première question conduit à un débat agréable (il y a encore des débats ?). Et ensuite au « ça, c’est mal — ou bien — parce que je le dis ». Ou, peut-être, il y a une discussion sur ce qu’est le bien et le mal, et de là, des arguments et des citations avec notes de bas de page. C’est vrai, vous avez raison, c’est mieux que de recourir à des « likes » et des « pouces en l’air », mais je vous ai proposé de changer de point de départ : choisir la destination de votre regard.

    Par exemple : vous décidez de regarder les musulmans. Vous pouvez choisir, par exemple, entre ceux qui ont perpétré l’attentat contre Charlie Hebdo ou ceux qui marchent maintenant sur les routes de France pour réclamer, exiger, imposer leurs droits. Vu que vous êtes arrivé jusqu’à ces lignes, il est très probable que vous penchiez pour les « sans-papiers ». Bien sûr, vous vous sentez aussi dans l’obligation de déclarer que Macron est un imbécile. (...)

    #Mexique #Chiapas #zapatistes #SupMarcos #Europe #France #sans-papiers #Macron #guerre #migrants #Morelos #mégaprojets #mer #radeau #marimba

  • Zypern : Mister X stellt Korruptionsnetzwerk auf Zypern bloß (neues-deutschland.de)
    https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1143148.zypern-mister-x-stellt-korruptionsnetzwerk-auf-zypern-blos

    Depuis l’entrée de la Chypre dans l’UE l’état a vendu des passeports à plus ou moins 2800 personnes pour une somme à partir de 2,5 millions d’Euros. Cette pratique touche à sa fin. On pourrait s’imaginer que désormais pour échapper aux poursuites pénales dans leurs pays les riches farudeurs russes et chinois aussi devron traverser la mer Méditerrannée à la nage.

    14.10.2020 von Peter Steiniger - Jetzt aber schnell: Bereits zum 1. November will die Republik Zypern das Investitionsprogramm auf Eis legen, über das Geldanleger ab 2,5 Millionen Euro einen zyprischen Pass erhalten und sich somit die EU-Staatsbürgerschaft kaufen können. Die Entscheidung teilte Regierungssprecher Kyriakos Koushos am Dienstag nach einer Dringlichkeitssitzung des Kabinetts mit. Besonderer Beliebtheit erfreut sich das Programm seit Jahren bei der entsprechenden Klientel im Nahen Osten und in Russland. Insgesamt hat Zypern, das 2004 die EU-Mitgliedschaft erhielt, damit etwa sieben Milliarden Euro generiert. Die Abschaffung vorgeschlagen haben laut Koushos unter Verweis auf »langjährige Schwächen, Missbrauch und Ausnutzung der Bestimmungen« der Innen- und der Finanzminister.

    Ganz freiwillig erfolgt der Schritt nicht. Tags zuvor hatte der Sender Al Jazeera mit Sitz in Katar eine Reportage gebracht, die zeigt, wie Beamte und Politiker sich ihre Hilfe für kriminelle Bewerber um einen »goldenen« Pass bezahlen lassen. Inhaber des Passes eines Mitgliedsstaates haben das Recht, sich in der Europäischen Union niederzulassen und frei zu bewegen. Undercover täuschten die Journalisten vor, für einen aus China geflohenen Interessenten aufzutreten. Bei ihrem »Mister X« handelte es sich um einen angeblich wegen Bestechung und Geldwäsche im Reich der Mitte in Abwesenheit zu sieben Jahren Haft verurteilten Geschäftsmann. Neben dem offiziellen Weg, erfuhren sie, existiert in Zypern noch ein weiterer, für »komplizierte« Fälle, der eine Kleinigkeit mehr kostet. Wer das begehrte Dokument ganz schnell benötigt, wer keine weiße Weste hat, muss auf die 2,5 Millionen Euro nur genügend draufpacken. Laut Al Jazeera soll es Dutzende Inhaber zyprischer goldener Pässe mit krimineller Vita geben. Korrupte Immobilienvertreter, Anwälte und Politiker arbeiten als Netzwerk Hand in Hand. Die Spur führt bis weit nach oben: Zyperns Parlamentspräsident Demetris Syllouris versprach den Lockvögeln »volle Unterstützung auf allen Ebenen« für den dubiosen Chinesen. Nur sein Name müsse aus der Sache herausgehalten werden, so Sylouris.

    Für Vermögende findet sich nicht nur in Zypern eine Tür hinein in die »Festung Europa«. Etliche weitere EU-Länder haben dazu lukrative Geschäftsmodelle entwickelt. Diese sollen mit EU-Privilegien Investoren anlocken. Meist handelt es sich bei den geforderten Investitionen um den Kauf teurer Immobilien. Weniger Interesse gilt trotz bestehender Regeln der Herkunft der Gelder. Zypern steht seit langem im Verdacht, ein Anlageplatz für das Schwarzgeld russischer Oligarchen und chinesischer Geschäftsleute zu sein.

    Die Praxis, EU-Aufenthaltstitel zu verhökern, sorgt seit Jahren von Bulgarien bis Portugal immer wieder für Skandale. Man habe »ungläubig beobachtet, wie hochrangige Beamte für finanzielle Bereicherung mit der europäischen Staatsbürgerschaft handeln«, kommentierte ein Sprecher der Europäischen Kommission am Dienstag den Bericht von Al-Jazeera. Die EU-Kommission begrüßte die Entscheidung der Regierung in Nikosia. Der im Mittelpunkt des Skandals stehende Parlamentspräsident Syllouris will die Ermittlungen der Justiz nicht durch Gebrauch seiner Abgeordneten-Immunität erschweren. Zurücktreten will er allerdings auch nicht, teilte er am Mittwoch mit.

    #migration #nantis #Europe #Chypre #corruption

  • Sixième partie
    « Une montagne en haute mer »

    EZLN, SCI Moisés

    https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Sixieme-partie-Une-montagne-en-haute-mer

    Comité clandestin révolutionnaire indigène
    Armée zapatiste de libération nationale
    Mexique, 5 octobre 2020

    Sœurs, frères, sœurs-frères,
    Compañeras, compañeros, compañeroas,

    Nous, peuples originaires de racine maya et zapatistes, vous saluons et vous disons que ce qui est venu à notre pensée commune, d’après ce que nous voyons, entendons et sentons.

    Un. Nous voyons et entendons un monde malade dans sa vie sociale, fragmenté en millions de personnes étrangères les unes aux autres, s’efforçant d’assurer leur survie individuelle, mais unies sous l’oppression d’un système prêt à tout pour étancher sa soif de profits, même alors qu’il est clair que son chemin va à l’encontre de l’existence de la planète Terre.

    L’aberration du système et sa stupide défense du « progrès » et de la « modernité » volent en éclats devant une réalité criminelle : les féminicides. L’assassinat de femmes n’a ni couleur ni nationalité, il est mondial. S’il est absurde et déraisonnable que quelqu’un soit persécuté, séquestré, assassiné pour sa couleur de peau, sa race, sa culture, ses croyances, on ne peut pas croire que le fait d’être femme signifie une sentence de marginalisation et de mort.

    En une escalade prévisible (harcèlement, violence physique, mutilation et assassinat), cautionnée par une impunité structurelle (« elle le méritait », « elle avait des tatouages », « qu’est-ce qu’elle faisait à cet endroit à cette heure-là ?", « habillée comme ça, il fallait s’y attendre »), les assassinats de femmes n’ont aucune logique criminelle si ce n’est celle du système. (...)

    #zapatistes #EZLN #Mexique #Chiapas #féminicides #Covid19 #mégaprojets #pandémie #paramilitaires #résistance #rébellion #Europe #Espagne #voyage #avril_2021

  • Le Vol du Boli : un opéra magique et choc à Paris
    https://pan-african-music.com/le-vol-du-boli

    Presqu’aucune représentations… je risque pas de pouvoir le voir un jour :(

    Au Théâtre du Châtelet, le musicien Damon Albarn et le cinéaste Abderrahmane Sissako réunissent un casting de rêve dans un spectacle historico-poétique qui entrechoque musique, danse et création visuelle pour évoquer le pillage de l’Afrique. Dernière ce soir, en attendant la fin du Covid.

    […]

    Pour ce projet très ambitieux, il a invité le réalisateur mauritanien Abderrahmane Sissako, multicésarisé pour le film Timbuktu. En 2018, les deux hommes ont choisi de se rencontrer dans une ville qu’ils connaissent bien : Bamako. « J’ai tout de suite senti quelqu’un de profondément humble, heureux d’être là, à la disponibilité humaine et artistique exceptionnelle », raconte le cinéaste, qui assure l’écriture et la mise en scène du spectacle avec Dorcy Rugamba et Charles Castella. C’est Sissako qui propose à Albarn de prendre comme point de départ du spectacle Le Vol du Boli, un fétiche sacré utilisé dans le culte initiatique du Komo au Mali et au Burkina Faso, et qui est aujourd’hui exposé au Musée du Quai Branly. Le Boli est un objet doté de pouvoirs, à la nature composite et mystérieuse, qui mêle sang, terre et pâte de mil.

    Ce fétiche tout-puissant en forme d’animal bossu pouvait garantir la paix sociale, apporter la prospérité ou punir. Dans l’Afrique Fantôme, l’écrivain et ethnologue Michel Leiris confie avoir volé le précieux totem. Dans ce livre, qui mélange récit ethnographique et personnel, Leiris se met à nu, et confie en filigrane qu’en étudiant d’autres sociétés humaines que la sienne, on ne peut pas oublier qui l’on est, sa propre culture, ses doutes et ses névroses. Cette lucidité contrite est oubliée par les auteurs du spectacle, qui se concentrent sur le boli comme symbole d’une société déstabilisée par ce vol, ce qu’Aminata Traoré appellera « le viol de l’imaginaire ».

    […]

    Avec son air de gamin ravi, Albarn pilote encore un aréopage de musiciens talentueux, qui sont maliens, burkinabés, congolais, anglais, tous si brillant qu’il faut les citer. Le lumineux Lansiné Kouyaté au balafon, le griot Baba Sissako, Mike Smith (multi-instruments), Remi Kabaka (percussions), Cubain Kabeya (percussions), Mamadou Diabaté (kora), Guillaume Bernard (trombone/euphonium/saqueboute), Melissa Hié (doom doom/ calabash), Ophélia Hié (balafon pentatonic), Papy Kalula Mbongo (djembé), Mél Malonga (percussions/doom doom) et Xavier Terrasa (reed player) entrent en culture clash avec un chœur « de musique ancienne » qui représente la « voix » coloniale unie à ce groove afrofuturiste.

    […]

    Et au-dessus des accords et des beats complexes de ce nouveau chapitre artistique afro-européen, plane la sublime chanteuse et actrice Fatoumata Diawara qui déploie ses talents griotiques avec une telle grâce qu’elle en devient presque mystique. À la fois Reine Mère, maîtresse de cérémonie, esclave ou patronne de maquis à Kinshasa. Sa présence traverse les frontières et les époques avec une élégance qui fait presque oublier les horreurs de l’histoire coloniale que cette pièce retrace depuis ses origines jusqu’à la mondialisation et la crise sanitaire actuelle. La qualité de l’orchestration porte donc haut les ambitions esthétiques, historiques, symboliques… et politiques de ce spectacle, dont les répétitions se sont déroulées entre le Mali, Paris, Montreuil et Londres au fil des deux dernières années.

    #musique #opéra #Afrique #Europe #afrofuturisme #Damon_Albarn #Abderrahmane_Sissako #Fatoumata_Diawara #Mali

  • #Migration_and_Asylum_Package : New Pact on Migration and Asylum documents adopted on 23 September 2020

    INTRO

    Migration has been a constant feature of human history with a profound impact on European society, its economy and its culture. With a well-managed system, migration can contribute to growth, innovation and social dynamism. Key societal challenges faced by the world today – demography, climate change, security, the global race for talent, and inequality – all have an impact on migration. Policy imperatives such as free movement in the Schengen area, safeguarding fundamental rights, ensuring security, and filling skills gaps, all call for an effective migration policy. The task facing the EU and its Member States, while continuing to address urgent needs, is to build a system that manages and normalises migration for the long term and which is fully grounded in European values and international law.

    The New Pact on Migration and Asylum offers a fresh start to address this task. The refugee crisis of 2015-2016 revealed major shortcomings, as well as the complexity of managing a situation which affects different Member States in different ways. It unearthed genuine concerns, and brought to the surface differences which need to be acknowledged and overcome. Above all, it highlighted a fundamental truth inherent in the nature of the EU: that every action has implications for others. While some Member States continue to face the challenge of external border management, others must cope with large-scale arrivals by land or sea, or overpopulated reception centres, and others still face high numbers of unauthorised movements of migrants. A new, durable European framework is needed, to manage the interdependence between Member States’ policies and decisions and to offer a proper response to the opportunities and challenges in normal times, in situations of pressure and in crisis situations: one that can provide certainty, clarity and decent conditions for the men, women and children arriving in the EU, and that can also allow Europeans to trust that migration is managed in an effective and humane way, fully in line with our values.

    The New Pact recognises that no Member State should shoulder a disproportionate responsibility and that all Member States should contribute to solidarity on a constant basis.

    It provides a comprehensive approach, bringing together policy in the areas of migration, asylum, integration and border management, recognising that the overall effectiveness depends on progress on all fronts. It creates faster, seamless migration processes and stronger governance of migration and borders policies, supported by modern IT systems and more effective agencies. It aims to reduce unsafe and irregular routes and promote sustainable and safe legal pathways for those in need of protection. It reflects the reality that most migrants come to the EU through legal channels, which should be better matched to EU labour market needs. And it will foster trust in EU policies by closing the existing implementation gap.

    This common response needs to include the EU’s relationships with third countries, as the internal and external dimensions of migration are inextricably linked: working closely with partners has a direct impact on the effectiveness of policies inside the EU. Addressing the root causes of irregular migration, combatting migrant smuggling, helping refugees residing in third countries and supporting well-managed legal migration are valuable objectives for both the EU and our partners to pursue through comprehensive, balanced and tailor-made partnerships.

    In designing the New Pact, the Commission undertook dedicated high-level and technical consultations with the European Parliament, all Member States, and a wide variety of stakeholders from civil society, social partners and business. The New Pact has been shaped by the lessons of the inter-institutional debates since the Commission proposals of 2016 to reform the Common European Asylum System. It will preserve the compromises already reached on the existing proposals and add new elements to ensure the balance needed in a common framework, bringing together all aspects of asylum and migration policy. It will close gaps between the various realities faced by different Member States and promote mutual trust by delivering results through effective implementation. Common rules are essential, but they are not enough. The interdependency of Member States also makes it indispensable to ensure full, transparent and consistent implementation on the ground.

    The New Pact on Migration and Asylum:

    ·robust and fair management of external borders, including identity, health and security checks;

    ·fair and efficient asylum rules, streamlining procedures on asylum and return;

    ·a new solidarity mechanism for situations of search and rescue, pressure and crisis;

    ·stronger foresight, crisis preparedness and response;

    ·an effective return policy and an EU-coordinated approach to returns;

    ·comprehensive governance at EU level for better management and implementation of asylum and migration policies;

    ·mutually beneficial partnerships with key third countries of origin and transit;

    ·developing sustainable legal pathways for those in need of protection and to attract talent to the EU; and

    ·supporting effective integration policies.

    https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/migration-and-asylum-package-new-pact-migration-and-asylum-documents-adopt

    #new_pact #pacte #migrations #UE #EU #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Union_européenne #23_septembre_2020 #Dublin #règlement_dublin #fin #fin_de_Dublin #suppression

    –-

    métaliste sur le pacte :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1019088

  • There’s a better way forward than sending Afghans home to conflict

    If the international community is serious about finding lasting solutions, then responsibility sharing is key.

    Many Afghans displaced outside their country are stuck in a state of perennial limbo, with no prospects for a genuine, safe return on the horizon. Yet the European Union and Afghanistan are negotiating the extension of a divisive agreement that repatriates failed asylum seekers to a country still at war.

    The EU and Afghanistan signed the #Joint_Way_Forward_agreement (#JWF) in 2016, in response to the so-called “refugee and migrant crisis”, when people from countries including Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq sought shelter and better livelihoods in Europe. This deal was seen by many as an attempt by the EU to shy away from their protection responsibilities, and instead, facilitate the return of thousands of Afghan nationals. Set to expire next week, on 6 October 2020, the EU is currently negotiating a further two-year extension of this agreement.

    While the JWF ostensibly offers a straightforward resolution to addressing the issue of irregular migration of Afghans to Europe, the deal fails to acknowledge two crucial factors: the impact of ongoing conflict, and the unequal burden Afghanistan’s neighbours have shouldered for years.

    Contrary to common belief, the vast majority of Afghan refugees do not live in western nations. Four decades of insecurity and conflict have pushed millions of people out of Afghanistan. For many, this has meant countless years away from their homeland, creating one of the world’s largest and most protracted refugee crises.

    Most are hosted in neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey. At present, there are an estimated 1.4 million registered and 500,000 unregistered Afghan refugees in Pakistan, between 1.5 and two million refugees in Iran, and a further 170,000 registered Afghan refugees in Turkey.

    By comparison, approximately 250,000 Afghans made their way to Europe in search of security and safety from 2015 to 2016 – the height of a “crisis” that garnered widespread international press coverage and political scrutiny.

    Most troublingly, the EU’s JWF agreement does not adequately acknowledge the fact that Afghanistan to this day is mired in conflict and faces other pressing challenges – despite ongoing peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

    The EU’s JWF agreement does not adequately acknowledge the fact that Afghanistan to this day is mired in conflict and faces other pressing challenges.

    In 2019 alone, conflict and violence displaced an estimated 461,000 people in 32 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. At least 158,000 more have been displaced this year, even as Taliban and Afghan government officials discussed moving forward with the peace talks. These numbers are on top of frequent displacements from floods, drought, and other disasters, which are expected to worsen as the impacts of climate change build.

    There are currently more than 2.9 million internally displaced persons in Afghanistan, according to the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Meanwhile, the majority of Afghans claiming asylum in Europe are granted protection: According to the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), approximately 58 percent of asylum claimants from Afghanistan were given refugee status in EU countries in June 2020.

    These figures are a stark reminder that conditions inside Afghanistan are clearly not conducive for return, and therefore call into question the fundamental premise of the Joint Way Forward agreement.

    As a country marred by violence, poverty, and insecurity, it is simply untenable to suggest that the situation in Afghanistan can support returns. Instead of returning to safety, those coming back from Europe may very well face immediate displacement, either within Afghanistan or into a neighbouring country.

    Afghan displacement is complex and multi-faceted. If the international community is serious about finding lasting solutions, then it will require a comprehensive approach. Responsibility sharing is key.

    As endorsed in the Global Compact for Refugees, the international community should focus on exploring options to open pathways for resettlement of Afghan refugees in Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan, as well as supporting these host countries with continued humanitarian and development assistance. As nations that are trying to improve their own healthcare systems and general infrastructure, host countries must also receive predictable and ongoing development support.

    Afghan displacement is complex and multi-faceted. If the international community is serious about finding lasting solutions, then it will require a comprehensive approach.

    Finally, governments and donors should recognise the tremendous heavy lifting being done by Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran. These nations have shouldered primary responsibility for Afghan refugees over the past four decades, and have done so with limited – often simply monetary – support from the international community.

    While Afghans in neighbouring countries have also faced pressure to return in recent years, these countries are still the main host actors in the region. For example, in Iran, there have been significant investments in healthcare and education opportunities for both registered and unregistered Afghan refugees. In Pakistan, the government has provided some refugees with permits to stay, and allowed some to open bank accounts.

    But goodwill alone will not sustain such positive developments. Instead, the international community must acknowledge this good practice, and proactively support these countries. It is essential that nations like Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey receive financial and technical support, renewed partnerships, and targeted investments.

    Durable solutions for Afghan refugees will only materialise through international solidarity and the genuine pursuit of shared responsibility. It is myopic to address the issue of Afghan displacement solely through arrangements premised around return.

    https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2020/09/30/Afghanistan-EU-Joint-Way-Forward-migration-asylum-seekers
    #Afghanistan #accord #renvois #expulsions #réfugiés_afghans #EU #UE #union_européenne #guerre #conflit

  • Le casse-tête du grand jeu gazier et de la reconfiguration stratégique qui l’accompagne, en Méditerranée orientale - Question d’Europe
    N°571 - Fondation Robert Schuman

    https://www.robert-schuman.eu/fr/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-571-fr.pdf

    POLICYPAPER FONDATION ROBERT SCHUMAN / QUESTION D’EUROPE N°571 / 21 SEPTEMBRE 2020POLICY PAPERQuestion d’Europen°57121 septembre 2020Le casse-tête du grand jeu gazier et de la reconfiguration stratégique qui l’accompagne, en Méditerranée orientaleJean MARCOUAu cours de l’été 2020, les tensions ambiantes en Méditerranée orientale[1] se sont muées en une escalade inquiétante, au point qu’en août dernier, Heiko Maas, ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères, estimait que « chaque petite étincelle pouvait déclencher une catastrophe »[2]. Au cours des deux dernières décennies, la découverte d’importants gisements gaziers dans cette zone a réveillé des différends anciens entre Grecs et Turcs (partition de Chypre, plateau continental de la mer Égée, etc.), mais les tensions s’étendent à d’autres pays du bassin oriental de la mer Méditerranée et concernent aussi l’Union européenne et l’OTAN. Plus généralement, elles s’inscrivent dans un contexte où des conflits récents (Syrie, Libye) déstabilisent le Proche-Orient. Le paradoxe de ce grand jeu gazier est qu’il intervient au moment où la crise de la Covid-19 a fait chuter les cours des hydrocarbures de façon spectaculaire, rendant exorbitant le coût des exploitations offshore. Dès lors, le gaz n’est sans doute pas le seul enjeu de cette suite de discordes et apparaît comme la manifestation la plus visible d’une recomposition stratégique beaucoup plus large

    #europe #gaz #guerre_du_gaz

  • [07] Varlin conspirateur
    https://www.partage-noir.fr/07-varlin-conspirateur

    Nous voici arrivés à l’insurrection du 18 mars et la Commune. Je n’ai pas à raconter les événements de ces deux mois : je veux seulement donner une indication qui fera toucher du doigt, une fois de plus, la manière dont fonctionnait, internationalement, l’organisation secrète à laquelle nous appartenions, Varlin et moi. #Varlin_conspirateur_-_James_Guillaume

    / #Eugène_Varlin

  • [05] Varlin conspirateur
    https://www.partage-noir.fr/05-varlin-conspirateur

    Pour la période qui va de la déclaration de guerre (15 juillet 1870) à la fin de la Commune, je donnerai également quelques indications. La plupart des militants de l’Internationale, en France, étaient sous les verrous ; quelques-uns avaient pu néanmoins se soustraire à l’arrestation : plusieurs Lyonnais s’étaient sauvés en Suisse, et, à Paris, trois ou quatre des condamnés du 5 juillet se cachaient. Puisque la guerre n’avait pu être évitée, malgré les véhémentes protestations du prolétariat socialiste en (...) #Varlin_conspirateur_-_James_Guillaume

    / #Eugène_Varlin

  • Funérailles interdites : le pouvoir à la botte de l’industrie néerlandaise

    La sentence est tombée, irrévocable. Les Funérailles de la pêche artisanale, co-organisées par BLOOM, LIFE, la Plateforme de la Petite Pêche et Pleine Mer et qui devaient réunir de nombreux pêcheurs et citoyens pour dénoncer le baptême du chalutier géant SCOMBRUS de 81 mètres, ont été interdites par arrêté préfectoral.

    https://www.bloomassociation.org/funerailles-interdites

    https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/economie-social/a-concarneau-pecheurs-et-associations-se-mobilisent-contre-l-arrivee-d-un

    #société #environnement #biodiversité #pêche #pillage_ressources #mer #europe

  • #Covid-19 : un nouveau #modèle scientifique prédit les pics de contamination en #Europe
    https://www.france24.com/fr/20200924-covid-19-un-nouveau-mod%C3%A8le-scientifique-pr%C3%A9dit-les-pics

    Leurs simulations, parues mercredi 23 septembre dans la revue Scientific reports de Nature, prévoient que tous les pays européens auront atteint le pic des contaminations du cycle actuel au plus tard en janvier 2021.

    Un modèle emprunté à la physique des particules

    En France, il ne faudrait pas attendre trop longtemps puisque ce pic serait atteint début octobre. Au Royaume-Uni, le nombre de nouvelles contaminations continuerait à augmenter jusqu’à la mi-novembre.

    Enfin, la Pologne et la Suède, qui misent sur l’immunité collective pour combattre le virus, devraient patienter jusqu’au début de l’année prochaine.